AA on a 3 diamond flop vs check-raise

villain is 14/4/1.5 over ~100 hands

pokerstars Game #15305010035: Hold'em No Limit ($0.10/$0.25) - 2008/02/15 - 16:45:46 (ET)
Table 'Werdandi' 9-max Seat #7 is the button
Seat 1: Behitem ($12.70 in chips)
Seat 2: big_joe65 ($4.25 in chips)
Seat 3: flguy1968 ($28.85 in chips)
Seat 4: 2RAISE ($25.55 in chips)
Seat 6: Timonga ($24.90 in chips)
Seat 7: Tygran37 ($24.05 in chips)
Seat 8: junktion ($34.65 in chips)
Seat 9: dxdt ($7.25 in chips)
junktion: posts small blind $0.10
dxdt: posts big blind $0.25
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Tygran37 [Ac Ah]
Behitem: folds
big_joe65: folds
flguy1968: calls $0.25
2RAISE: folds
Timonga: calls $0.25
Tygran37: raises $1 to $1.25
junktion: folds
dxdt: folds
flguy1968: calls $1
Timonga: calls $1
*** FLOP *** [5d Qd Jd]
flguy1968: checks
Timonga: checks
Tygran37: bets $3.50
flguy1968: folds
Timonga: raises $5.50 to $9
Tygran37:???

It's shove or fold and folding seems to be best here unless you've seen him run some bluffs over this very small sample size of hands.

I think I agree with folding here. His limp-call preflop followed by a flop ch-r just screams strength to me and I'd guess that he already has you beat. I was going to say there could be some combo draws out there but I really don't see many hands that take this line that have a big draw on the flop.

That's what I figured I'd get as responses but thought I'd post and see.. limp-call-c/r screams either set or made flush. If I had him beat with the aces I figured he'd be on some massive draw..combo probably.

So I mucked it here.

So should we check behind here? If the 4th diamond hits we're either beat (and folding when he bets) or getting to SD cheaply (if he actually hit his set). We can call his likely turn bet and then fold to any decent bet on the river if the 4th diamond doesn't hit the board.

WVHillbilly said:

So should we check behind here? If the 4th diamond hits we're either beat (and folding when he bets) or getting to SD cheaply (if he actually hit his set). We can call his likely turn bet and then fold to any decent bet on the river if the 4th diamond doesn't hit the board.

Click to expand...

That's too passive in my opinion.

A lot of times you'll bet out here and get flat called by someone with the naked diamond or someone who hit top pair and is afraid to raise you.

If you're going to call a turn bet and not have any idea where you stand then you might as well be the one doing the betting on the flop to bring in the fold equity. No?

WV actually has a good point. This is sort of one of those ba/wb spots where waiting for a safe turn could actually be a good idea.

We protect ourselves vs a draw which might ch-r and put us in a tough decision (see above), induce action on the turn from worse hands, maintain pot control and lose the minimum when we're up against a better hand.

Czech Razor said:

That's too passive in my opinion.

A lot of times you'll bet out here and get flat called by someone with the naked diamond or someone who hit top pair and is afraid to raise you.

If you're going to call a turn bet and not have any idea where you stand then you might as well be the one doing the betting on the flop to bring in the fold equity. No?

Click to expand...

So it's better to be aggressive and get bluffed out of a pot with a check-raise than play passive (for 1 hand) and possibly win the pot???

Let's give our villain a hand like AdQs here. We're ahead (barely) but he holds TP and the nut flush draw. If we bet, he can safely ch-raise because he knows a tight player (like we are) is very unlikely to have a couple of diamonds without the A. Even if he didn't connect with the board if he holds the Ace of suit here he should know that we'll fold most hands.

ChuckTs said:

WV actually has a good point.

Click to expand...

No need to sound so shocked, Chuck.

WVHillbilly said:

So it's better to be aggressive and get bluffed out of a pot with a check-raise than play passive (for 1 hand) and possibly win the pot???

Click to expand...

The villain's stats over the last 100 hands indicate he's very tight-passive. What makes you think he magically turns into a LAG player this hand and check-raises this scary flop? lol.

An AF of 1.5 is not overly passive and if he has the Ad and he's even thinking at all he'll know that he can take this pot with a check-raise 90% of the time. The only time we're likely to call here is if we've hit out set. In the example here everyone has agreed that laying down AA was the right move.

Just betting so we can say we're playing "aggressively" is bad poker, IMO. We're giving away $$ and possibly laying down the best hand.

WVHillbilly said:

An AF of 1.5 is not overly passive and if he has the Ad and he's even thinking at all he'll know that he can take this pot with a check-raise 90% of the time. The only time we're likely to call here is if we've hit out set. In the example here everyone has agreed that laying down AA was the right move.

Just betting so we can say we're playing "aggressively" is bad poker, IMO. We're giving away $$ and possibly laying down the best hand.

Click to expand...

You guys have brought up a great point here and it's been fun watching it. I briefly thought about a shove when he check-raised because I can very easily believe that this guy is doing this with any hand including the Ad..made flush or not. An especially notorious hand for this here is Ad with a Q. so TPTK and a nut draw. Basically concluded that I will run into the made flush and/or get outdrawn an awful lot of the time and it's just not worth it here. The shove might get rid of a set (maybe) but the flush or a flush draw willing to go all the way are much more likely.


That is such a good flop to bluff like that on because most players at this level will fold without a good diamond (or two) and it's almost impossible to tell a ch-raise bluff from a ch-raise "i have a flush please call me". I'm thinking I probably should have checked behind him here and reevaluated the turn..if it's not a diamond bet it there.

WVHillbilly said:

An AF of 1.5 is not overly passive and if he has the Ad and he's even thinking at all he'll know that he can take this pot with a check-raise 90% of the time. The only time we're likely to call here is if we've hit out set. In the example here everyone has agreed that laying down AA was the right move.

Just betting so we can say we're playing "aggressively" is bad poker, IMO. We're giving away $$ and possibly laying down the best hand.

Click to expand...

We're not betting just to say we're playing aggressively. We have a passive villain and a susceptible hand so we should bet out to take down a small pot.

What makes me consider checking is that this pot is 3 way and not heads-up.

So what's your play if we check, a safe card comes, and then he bets 3/4 the pot? Probably call, right? And if the river doesn't improve anyone's hand and he bets 1/2 the pot are you calling to see if he had a set, QJ, or a flopped flush?

This is a difficult one. On the one hand it's worth betting out to find out where you are as cheap as you can. But on the other hand, so many hands will check/raise you in this situation. A made flush, set, 2p, Ad are probably all pulling a check/raise here.

Check, and if a scary turn card comes out you can escape. I'd call any reasonable bets hoping to get to SD as cheap as possible. Obviously if another diamond comes on the river I'm done.